Anderson's Animals
That's exactly right. Her real estate license, much like other licenses the SC Dept. of Labor & Licensing administer are two-year licenses, and in her case, I would think runs from July 1, 2008 - June 30, 2010. CPA licenses are the same (two-year in length), ending on 12/31 every two years. The bottom line is "one-shot" has been caught in a lie......big surprise w/ that, huh?
-dwade
How many does that make this year?
Depends upon your definition of LIE....for a golfer, it's a fair putt with a slight drift to the west.
His totals fallacy count certainly exceeds the number of jumpsuits promised and delivered!
For someone to call themselves an investigative Journalist with those stats is simply amazing!
Just what Anderson needs! Another arm-chair barrister!
Discovery doesn't have a darned thing to do with the Defendents' making of allegations.-wyatt1sc
Discovery allows you access to information that has nothing to do with the case but can be used against the person later, much like your attorney is doing right now. Personal e-mails have nothing to do with an action to stop council from conducting an investigation but she wants them to see if there is anything embarrassing. Now how stupid is Cindy Wilson because she say she not "know how to use a computer" LOL BTW the Plaintiff makes the allegation and starts the action the Defendant defends or makes counter claim. One would have thought you know that by now.
Dirty little tricks of the trade in law suits & politics.
Discovery allows you access to information that has nothing to do with the case but can be used against the person later, much like your attorney is doing right now. Personal e-mails have nothing to do with an action to stop council from conducting an investigation but she wants them to see if there is anything embarrassing. Now how stupid is Cindy Wilson because she say she not "know how to use a computer" LOL BTW the Plaintiff makes the allegation and starts the action the Defendant defends or makes counter claim. One would have thought you know that by now. [image]Dirty little tricks of the trade in law suits & politics.
-freespeach85
Ah yes ... but when you start throwing the word "conspiracy" about, the requirements and restrictions surrounding discovery become much more constrained.
See also ... SCOTUS - Bell Atlantic v. Twombly.
- SSHM
Just what Anderson needs! Another arm-chair barrister!
Discovery doesn't have a darned thing to do with the Defendents' making of allegations.
The motivation behind this attack on Amy Plummer is simply to intimidate her enough to force her hand into being deposed.
As she hasn't done anything (at LEAST not proven anyways) illegal, their side aint got sh** and they KNOW it. Another in the long line of desperation acts being used. Their next tact will be the return of innuendoes about Ms. Plummer's friends and relationships.-wyatt1sc
...as he proceeds to give his best legal advice. Funny how you seem to think if someone can't prove something, it must have never happened. Only people who live in a world of "catch me if you can" think like that. I don't need a court of law to "read the writing on the wall" for me. This is the court of public opinion. It doesn't take a court of law to tell us what we think. You watch, you see, you learn many things. Whether the person made good enough moves to cover their tracks, doesn't mean they didn't commit them to start with. You have your opinion based on your observations and I have mine. I don't have to prove it to you to have an opinion and anyone wishing to sue because they don't like my opinion is welcome to give it a shot. Maybe your standards of morality, character, honesty and serving the public good are such that you believe if someone isn't actually provably committing a crime, they must not be doing anything wrong. Again only people who lack standards of morality, character, honesty think like that.
JD, maybe you should consult with "F. Lee" Wyatt1sc to straighten out your misconception of our legal system. Much like the advice you threw out concerning free speach and your forum here. "Free speech only applies to protesting against the government, this is a private forum and therefore the First Amendment does not cover you" I believe was the posit set forth. "Innocent until proven guilty," your much misused legal position has to do with criminal law. In civil law, there is no guilt or innocence to be proven by either party, only who proves their case with a preponderance of he evidence. Is Amy Plummer being charged with a crime? No, (not yet anyway). Therefore your legal musing are ....well just that musings!! I don't have to prove guilt or innocence to have an opinion about a civil matter...
I have only to believe it more than not.
It's a biennial license.
-leopold-galtieri
Once again inaccurate information. There was a change that allowed for some to renew every two years. Those Realtors 2011 renewal date. Plummer is still on the annual renewal schedule as indicated by the 2010 renewal date on her license.
Freespeech85 said: "Once again inaccurate information. There was a change that allowed for some to renew every two years. Those Realtors 2011 renewal date. Plummer is still on the annual renewal schedule as indicated by the 2010 renewal date on her license."
And you can tell Ms. Plummer's is a one vs. two-year term how? There is nothing on the SCDLL's website that distinguishes the term of her license, vs. others. My CPA license has a 12/31/2010 expiration date for renewal, but does not indicate that it is in fact a two-year term that began 1/1/2009.
License number: 23089
License type: Salesman
Status: ACTIVE
Expiration: 6/30/2010 12:00:00 AM
Office: ALLISON PROPERTIES
Ah yes ... but when you start throwing the word "conspiracy" about, the requirements and restrictions surrounding discovery become much more constrained.
See also ... SCOTUS - Bell Atlantic v. Twombly.- SSHM
-sshm
Incorrect again. The attorneys casts a broad net in discovery the Judge rules on relevance and admissibility. Wyatt's attorney has done just this, his case is not about conspiracy. Case precedence is not so broadly applied as you lead people to believe.
Wow, SSHM and Freespeach! The last time I got bad legal advice, it set me back more than $2,000. Thanks for saving me some cash here.
Y'all might want to step out of the cocoon and check out Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) for the application of civil procedure rules established by Bell Atlantic v. Twombly to non-antitrust cases. Just returning the favor and saving you some money you'd otherwise pay for bad legal advice. 
And you can tell Ms. Plummer's is a one vs. two-year term how?
-dwade
I made a phone call to the Licensing Board and asked.
Incorrect again. The attorneys casts a broad net in discovery the Judge rules on relevance and admissibility. Wyatt's attorney has done just this, his case is not about conspiracy. Case precedence is not so broadly applied as you lead people to believe.
-freespeach85
Read the finding of the court.
It NO LONGER works in the manner in which you are describing when attempting to assert a conspiracy. Wyatt's case does not assert a conspiracy. Freemantle's case DOES. Broad nets no longer work or are allowed.
Let me quote myself ...
"
SCOTUS, by reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruled that plantiffs could not allege a conspiracy just because it would seem that one existed. SCOTUS also agreed in large part with the District Court's reasoning and analysis by stating that a plaintiff's factual allegations must be "beyond a speculative level." Simply put, in future cases, plaintiffs will have to cite some factual basis for the existence of a conspiracy.
If this isn't sinking in yet ... let me go into more detail ...
Since
Twombly (and subsequent implementations in common law), the implication
now is that plaintiffs better allege some factual basis before making
such a claim. In the past, plaintiffs could get to the discovery phase
with some predictability and then look for other facts to support their
claims. You can't do that anymore, folks."
It's really that simple.
- SSHM
You know for all your tricky little offerings, you really don't say a whole lot. Most of the time, your 27 minutes of fame could be said in three sentences..."a plaintiff's factual allegations must be "beyond a speculative level."
Read the finding of the court.
It NO LONGER works in the manner in which you are describing when attempting to assert a conspiracy. Wyatt's case does not assert a conspiracy. Freemantle's case DOES. Broad nets no longer work or are allowed.
Let me quote myself ...
"
SCOTUS, by reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruled that plantiffs could not allege a conspiracy just because it would seem that one existed. SCOTUS also agreed in large part with the District Court's reasoning and analysis by stating that a plaintiff's factual allegations must be "beyond a speculative level." Simply put, in future cases, plaintiffs will have to cite some factual basis for the existence of a conspiracy.If this isn't sinking in yet ... let me go into more detail ...
SinceTwombly (and subsequent implementations in common law), the implicationnow is that plaintiffs better allege some factual basis before makingsuch a claim. In the past, plaintiffs could get to the discovery phasewith some predictability and then look for other facts to support theirclaims. You can't do that anymore, folks."
It's really that simple.
- SSHM
-sshm
Speculation is postulation pre action. A million bucks worth of action has been taken. We are beyond speculative level. If we disagree on the results of the actions taken, it is for a jury to decide. That is the American way.
freespeech85 said: "I made a phone call to the Licensing Board and asked."
Why you had them on the phone, did you ask them if specifically, at any time, if Ms. Plummer's license had lapsed (for whatever reason....failure to renew on time, failure to complete continuing education credits required to renew on time, etc.). "one-shot" alleged Ms. Plummer is and has been working under an expired license, and under Ken Allison's license at Allison Properties.
It is illegal to offer legal advice unless you are an attorney. This is a disagreement about discovery. The fact of the matter is, members of council have been asked to provide personal information that has nothing to do with the case, ask them yourself. You will understand why Wilson the female does not turn computers on.
It's illegal to get PAID for legal advice unless you're an attorney. Fortunately, my First Amendment rights to WRITE anything I want to write trumps their self-serving licensing restrictions.
Personally, I think we professional writers should get legislation passed making it illegal for a licensed attorney to WRITE anything without being a licensed writer, but such a law would be laughed out of the General Assembly which, with a straight face, DID indeed pass laws restricting the dispensing of legal advice to licensed lawyers. Go figure.
By the way, I think Cindy Wilson should learn to turn a computer on. Everybody needs to believe they can at least turn SOMETHING on other than an old lawyer, poor dear.
Speculation is postulation pre action. A million bucks worth of action has been taken. We are beyond speculative level. If we disagree on the results of the actions taken, it is for a jury to decide. That is the American way.
-maxwellsmart
Maxwell (not so) Smart,
Shall we break out the crayons?
... factual allegations must be "beyond a speculative level."
In other words, A + B = C is not enough. Just like in Geometry class, you must prove what A is, what B is, and that the combination of A and B will yield C. Using logical deduction and the discovery process to provide your proof isn't sufficient or permitted any longer. If you can prove the allegations without relying on discovery to "fill in the gaps," then you are fine. If not, back to square one.
Again ... this is in cases that allege conspiracy.
Such allegations can be found in that per se filing (well, I say it's per se as it tends to ramble on for some 50 pages about every tin-foil crack-pot theory I've ever heard about here in Anderson) in the Freemantle case.
Yes JD, the new SCOTUS case is interesting in how it links Rule 8 and Twombly.
- SSHM
It's illegal to get PAID for legal advice unless you're an attorney. Fortunately, my First Amendment rights to WRITE anything I want to write trumps their self-serving licensing restrictions.
Personally, I think we professional writers should get legislation passed making it illegal for a licensed attorney to WRITE anything without being a licensed writer, but such a law would be laughed out of the General Assembly which, with a straight face, DID indeed pass laws restricting the dispensing of legal advice to licensed lawyers. Go figure. [image]
By the way, I think Cindy Wilson should learn to turn a computer on. Everybody needs to believe they can at least turn SOMETHING on other than an old lawyer, poor dear.
-jdtippett
Again, I think you would be arguing against your own claim that First Amendment rights are related to conversing with your government, not discussing legal subject matters and governmental restrictions put there on. A law, originally written to prevent the wholesale practice of law by unlicensed individuals, is micro enforced to shut up people the legal system doesn't want to deal with.
An interesting conundrum would be created if someone were to register a religion called the Religion of Laws. It's scriptures would be all written law, precedent and related matters. Adherents to this faith could freely discuss, give advice and ruminate about it's meanings without fear of being accused of practicing law without a license (as it is sometimes referred to). I would love to see the Supreme Court rule on what took precedent in that situation. It would be pitting the sanctity of religion freedom against the elitism of the legal profession.
An interesting conundrum would be created if someone were to register a religion called the Religion of Laws. It's scriptures would be all written law, precedent and related matters. Adherents to this faith could freely discuss, give advice and ruminate about it's meanings without fear of being accused of practicing law without a license (as it is sometimes referred to). - maxwellsmart
Yes, we already have that. I believe it's called CONGRESS.
The Supreme Court occasionally smacks them down six or seven years after the offense (McCain-Feingold), but for the time being lets them by with grievous crimes against free speech (the recently enacted "Hate Crimes" legislation tacked to the defense spending bill by the thought police of the Democrat Party.)
.
Let me quote myself ...
- SSHM
-sshm
So goes the credibility. LMAO
... as opposed to others in town, who think their idiotic beliefs have credibility when they can start them with, "I heard on the Rick Driver/Stan Welch Show ... "
LMAO right back atcha.
I think that if we were to stop parsing words and debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin....
we would reduce about 90% of the content on this site sometimes...
(yes, I know that on occasion I have been known to parse a few words myself)
